TGG
ConstructionValuation Breakdown
Construction and industrial firms have characteristics of both cyclical businesses (lumpy project-based revenue) and growth companies (expanding order books). This model blends two approaches 50/50: EV/EBITDA valuation (captures current earning power relative to peers) and FCF-based DCF (captures future cash generation potential). If EV/EBITDA produces a negative value (debt exceeds enterprise value), only DCF is used.
Valuation Track Record
Retroactive intrinsic value vs actual close price — TGG
Earnings Quality
Fiscal year 2025
Financial Forensics
Beneish M-Score · 2025
TGG exhibits several concerning indicators that suggest potential earnings manipulation, particularly with a Beneish M-Score of -3.3869, well below the manipulation threshold. The earnings quality score of 37.9/100, particularly low in revenue and margin metrics, raises further concerns about the reliability of reported earnings.
- Beneish M-Score of -3.3869 indicates a high likelihood of earnings manipulation, significantly below the threshold of -1.78.
- Earnings Quality Score of 37.9/100, with revenue and margin metrics at 0.0/100, suggests severe issues in revenue recognition and profitability.
- Receivables metric at 100.0/100 indicates strong management of receivables, which could imply effective credit control.
The ownership structure is relatively fragmented with the largest institutional shareholder holding only 18.6%, which may lead to governance challenges and potential conflicts of interest.
Investors should exercise caution and conduct further due diligence, particularly focusing on cash flow statements and revenue recognition practices before making investment decisions.
Generated by AI based on quantitative data. Not financial advice.
Quantitative Scores
Key Ratios
Company Overview
// OWNERSHIP_NETWORK
> mapping common ownership for TGG — hover nodes for intel, click to navigate